I’m writing in response to the July 3 column “Discrimination law targets religion.”

The writer, Pastor Jeff Harris, claims that a nondiscrimination ordinance is intended to suppress religious freedom, yet he fails to find actual evidence of religious freedom being suppressed or denied. Every example that Pastor Harris submits in support of his argument is in fact his misinterpretation of the facts.

n The Florida church that was denied a building permit? The land that they wanted to build on was zoned for residential, single-family use and not for commercial use (Florida Times-Union, Oct. 15, 2015).

n The five church pastors’ sermons that were subpoenaed? City attorneys issued subpoenas as part of the discovery phase of a lawsuit, lodged by religious leaders, over whether or not the pastors told their congregants to cheat in gathering signatures to overturn a city nondiscrimination ordinance (Time, Oct 17, 2014).

n The ordained ministers declining to officiate a same-gender wedding? They run The Hitching Post, a for-profit business, not a church. Regardless, their business was deemed exempt from the city’s nondiscrimination ordinance, and officials had no intent to prosecute the ministers (Boise Weekly, March 29, 2016).

Not one of these is an instance of a nondiscrimination ordinances being used to persecute religious citizens or suppress their constitutional rights.

The proposed ordinance here in Butler will be no different. In section 3 in the Purpose and Declaration of the ordinance, it states, “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as supporting or advocating any particular doctrine, position, point of view, lifestyle or religious view. To the contrary, it is the intention of this chapter that all persons be treated fairly and equally, and it is the express intent of this chapter to guarantee fair and equal treatment under the law to all people of the City of Butler.”

Moreover, the ordinance explicitly exempts religious corporations and associations, so Harris’ church was free — and will continue to be free — to treat LGBT citizens differently. That is their right and we have no desire to curb that right. Our churches will not be bound by this ordinance.

Instead, the ordinance prevents people from being kicked out of their rented home, denied public accommodation, or fired from their job because of their “actual or perceived race, color, sex, religion, ancestry, genetic information, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, familial status, marital status, age, veteran status, mental or physical disability, use of guide or support animals and/or mechanical aids.”

This ordinance is the same as those in 35 other municipalities in Pennsylvania, the first one having been passed in 1983. So, with 33 years and more than 4 million Pennsylvanians covered under this style of ordinance, the pastor cannot cite one case of religious discrimination as a result of these protections.

We can easily go point-by-point to debunk his claims. He is not the first person to try cloaking bigotry in half-truths meant to inflame our fears, but this is pointless in the age of Google when we can all easily fact-check his claims. He is misinterpreting the proposed ordinance and falsely claiming legal and policy implications, and he does so despite the support this ordinance has among community members, many of whom are pastors, ministers and devout believers.

But this is more than just a moral argument, it is also a business one.

Research shows that policies which promote LGBT equality are good for economic development and that discrimination hurts the economy. A 2014 study conducted by the World Bank shows that local business profit and the inclusion of LGBT people are closely linked, while a 2011 paper found that U.S. cities that were LGBT-friendly in 1990 are “today substantially richer” than less LGBT-friendly cities (Sociological Forum, March 2011). Not only does inclusion help local businesses, but we know that discrimination holds them back. North Carolina recently passed a law that banned non-discrimination ordinances, and estimates place the economic damage at over $50 million for the state (Washington Post, Apr. 12, 2016).

It would be an advantage for Butler to have this ordinance to persuade businesses to come and invest in our city. Communities that welcome everyone attract the best talent. Sporting event vendors want to sell more tickets, and conventions look for cities in which everyone who attends can freely enjoy the city’s amenities, dine, and visit the surrounding area.

It is time that the city of Butler joins the rest of the municipalities that have passed this ordinance to protect their citizens and visitors. This is not only the morally right thing to do, but it makes good business sense.

Sabrina Schnur of Butler is a member and officer of PFLAG-Butler County and editor of the chapter’s newsletter.